Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Reminds Investors That Class Action Lawsuits Have Been Filed Against Peabody Energy, Tactile Systems, Pintec Technology, and Aurora Cannabis and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

NEW YORK, Oct. 28, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU), Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD), Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: PT), and Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided.


Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU)

Class Period: April 3, 2017 to October 28, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2020

The complaint, filed on September 28, 2020, alleges that from April 3, 2017 through September 28, 2018, defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the safety practices at the Company’s North Goonyella mine, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (i) the Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion event; (ii) the Company failed to follow its own safety procedures; and (iii) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a heightened risk of shutdown.

The truth about Peabody’s inadequate safety practices was revealed when, on September 28, 2018, a fire erupted at the mine, forcing Peabody to suspend operations indefinitely. On this news, Peabody shares fell $5.54 per share, or 13.4%.

The complaint further alleges that, following the fire and throughout the remainder of the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of Peabody’s plan to restart the North Goonyella mine: (i) the Company’s low-cost plan to restart operations at the mine posed unreasonable safety and environmental risks; (ii) the Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable health and safety standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate (“QMI”), would likely mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach; and (iii) as a result, there would be major delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine and restarting coal production.

The truth about the feasibility of Peabody’s plan to restart operations at North Goonyella was revealed through a series of disclosures beginning on February 6, 2019, when Peabody revealed that contrary to previous statements, production at the North Goonyella mine would not resume in 2019, but was instead targeted to begin to ramp in the early months of 2020. On this news, Peabody shares fell by $3.80 per share, or 10.6%.

On October 29, 2019, Peabody disclosed that QMI was placing strict restrictions on restarting operations at the North Goonyella mine and that as a result Peabody was forced to drastically adjust its reentry plan, ultimately announcing a three year or more delay before any meaningful coal could be produced. On this news, Peabody shares declined $3.26 per share, or 22%.

For more information on the Peabody Energy class action go to:

https://bespc.com/cases/BTU


Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD)

Class Period: May 7, 2018 to June 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Tactile is a medical technology company that develops and provides medical devices for the at home treatment of lymphedema and venous insufficiency. A material portion of Tactile’s annual revenues come in the form of reimbursement from public third party payers, such as Medicare, the Veteran’s Administration and certain Medicaid programs in the United States. Accordingly, Tactile’s compliance with applicable federal and state rules and public payer regulations is critical to the Company’s success.

The complaint, filed on September 29, 2020, alleges that defendants violated the securities laws by misrepresenting and concealing that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable market for Tactile’s medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile and/or its employees were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities in violation of applicable federal and state rules and public payer regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of Tactile’s claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile’s revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5) defendants’ public statements, including its year-over-year revenue growth and the purported growth drivers, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The truth began to emerge on March 20, 2019, when an amended federal

Qui Tam

complaint filed against Tactile by one of the Company’s competitors was unsealed, which contained detailed allegations of illegal sales practices on the part of Tactile, causing the Company to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare and the VA.

On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $4.53 per share over the next two trading days, or 7.5%, from a close price of $60.10 per share on March 20, 2019 to a close price of $55.57 on March 22, 2019.

Then, on February 21, 2020, the court issued an order in the

Qui Tam

action, denying Tactile’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $6.65 per share, or 10.59%, to close at $56.09 on February 24, 2020.

Finally, on June 8, 2020, research firm OSS Research published a scathing report about the Company, accusing Tactile of using a “‘daisy-chaining’ kickback scheme that has resulted in rampant overprescribing and rapid market share gains at the expense of patients, insurers and the public.”

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $6.05, or 11.69%, from its June 8, 2020 opening price of $51.72 per share to a June 9, 2020 close of $45.67.

For more information on the Tactile class action go to:

https://bespc.com/cases/TCMD


Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: PT)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s October 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”).

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020

In October 2018, Pintec completed its IPO in which it sold more than 3.7 million American Depositary Shares (“ADSs” or “shares”) at $11.88 per share.

On July 30, 2019, the Company filed its fiscal 2018 annual report, in which it restated previously disclosed financial results. Among other things, the Company reported net income of $315,000 for fiscal year 2018, compared to its prior disclosure of $1.068 million net income. Pintec also disclosed that there were material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.53, or more than 13%, over the next several trading sessions, to close at $3.40 per share on August 5, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

On June 15, 2020, Pintec disclosed that it could not timely file its fiscal 2019 annual report and that it anticipated reporting a significant change in results of operations. Specifically, the Company disclosed that it “erroneously recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis” for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Moreover, Pintec “announced a net loss of RMB906.5 million in the full year of 2019 due to RMB890.7 million of provision for credit loss in amounts due from a related party, Jimu Group, and RMB200 million of impairment in prepayment for long-term investment.”

By the commencement of the action, Pintec shares were trading as low as $0.92 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $11.88 per share IPO price.

The complaint, filed September 29, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company erroneously recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were material weaknesses in Pintec’s internal control over financial reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial results for fiscal 2017 and 2018 had been misstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Pintec class action go to:

https://bespc.com/cases/PT


Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB)

Class Period: February 13, 2020 to September 4, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020

Aurora is headquartered in Edmonton, Canada. The Company produces and distributes medical cannabis products worldwide. It is vertically integrated and horizontally diversified across various segments of the cannabis value chain, including facility engineering and design, cannabis breeding, genetics research, production, derivatives, high value-add product development, home cultivation, wholesale, and retail distribution.

In 2018, the Canadian government approved the Cannabis Act, which legalized and regulated the use of recreational cannabis. In response to the statute’s approval, and the corresponding surge of the recreational cannabis industry, Aurora completed a series of acquisitions to expand the Company’s presence and increase its distribution, including the Company’s all-share purchase of the Canadian medical cannabis producer MedReleaf for total consideration of 3.2 billion Canadian dollars. Like many other companies in the cannabis industry, however, the Company encountered a variety of difficulties as the industry surged, including, inter alia, overproduction, regulatory delays, and competition from the black market.

On February 6, 2020,shortly before the start of the Class Period, Aurora issued a press release announcing, inter alia, a “business transformation plan,” to “better align the business financially with the current realities of the cannabis market in Canada while maintaining a sustainable platform for long-term growth.” Specifically, the press release touted that the plan was “expected to include significant and immediate decreases in selling, general & administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and capital investment plans.”

On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release “announc[ing] an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited preliminary fiscal fourth quarter 2020 results.” Among other things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to $1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter of 2020. The Company also announced that “previously announced fixed asset impairment charges[ were] now expected to be up to $90 million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand with near term expectations for demand.”

On this news, Aurora’s stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63%, to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020.

The complaint, filed on October 2, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the Company’s purported “business transformation plan” and cost reset failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Aurora Cannabis class action go to:

https://bespc.com/cases/ACB


About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:


Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit


www.bespc.com

. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


Contact Information:


Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Brandon Walker, Esq.

Melissa Fortunato, Esq.

Marion Passmore, Esq.

(212) 355-4648


[email protected]


www.bespc.com

Primary Logo

If You Liked This Article Click To Share

.mobile_tx{display: none;}
#ax1x{
font-size: 1.1em;
font-weight: bold;
line-height: 1.5;
clear:both;
margin: 0px 0px 20px 1% !important;
min-height: 4.5em;
text-transform: uppercase;
padding: .25em 0 10px 0;
position: relative;
width: 98%;
float: left;
}
.next-pg {
height: 85px !important;
width: 100%;
border-top-left-radius: 3px;
border-bottom-left-radius: 3px;
background-color: #e5192c ;
background-image: url(‘/wp-content/themes/mh-magazine/images/global-after.png’) !important;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-position: right center;
background-size: auto 100%;
overflow: hidden;
box-sizing: border-box;
margin-bottom: 0px;
margin-top: 10px;
position: relative;
padding-left: 100px;
}
.next-pg::before {
width: 45px !important;
height: 85px !important;
display: block;
content: “”;
width: 32px;
height: 64px;
background-image: url(‘/wp-content/themes/mh-magazine/images/global-before.png’) !important;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-position: right center;
background-size: auto 100%;
position: absolute;
left: -4px;
top: 0px;
}
.action-txt {
text-transform: uppercase;
margin: 12px;
line-height: 61px;
text-align: left;
font-size: 36px;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-position: right center;
background-size: 26px 18px;
color: #FFF;
float: left;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: “Open Sans”,sans-serif !important;
width: 78%;
display: inline-block;
text-align: center;
}
@media (max-width: 768px){
.mobile_tx{display: block;}
.desktop_tx{display: none;}
.pps-slider-nav .pps-next {
text-align: center;
position: static;
padding: 5px 20px;
float: left;
width: 100%;
box-sizing: border-box;
}
.pps-next .next-article-page {
padding-left: 0;
float: left;
margin: 0;
}
.next-article-page .action-txt {
padding-left: 0!important;
text-align: center;
width: 87%;
box-sizing: border-box;
font-size: 26px;
background: 0 0;
text-align: center;
}
#ax1x {
padding: .25em 0!important;
min-height: 2.3em;
width: 100% !important;
margin: 0px !important;
margin-bottom: 15px !important;
padding-bottom: 0!important;
}
}
@media (max-width: 500px){
.next-article-page .action-txt{
width: 75%;
}
}

Latest posts